Implications of Bin Laden's death?

JustinDee · 02-05-2011 07:47PM

Yeah, should have sat back, closed eyes and hoped it would all go away.

invinciblePRSTV · 02-05-2011 08:00PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

So Britain is a weak and/or puppet government?

The WWII era British Government had its back against the wall, so weak yes. In exchange for US support in the European arena it signed off most of the remnants of its empire into US hands and has played the role of mini me to the USA in the latters misadventures around the world.

I would ascribe Margaret Thatchers willingness to station US nuclear weapons on British soil also as a weak government.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you really think that in the post-war era Germany's neighbors wanted them to have their own large army again, even with the neighboring Soviet threat? (They couldn't have even if they had wanted to.)

4 countries originally occupied Germany in the post WWII era, nearly 70 years ago. only 2 remain in situ, one of which is the US' bitch when it comes to geo-politics. You still think the US and it's significant presence in Western Europe is to prevent Germany from rising again?

Seriously?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you think Pacific rim countries don't benefit from the US Navy's presence? Or that countries like Korea would prefer to see the Japanese taking on this role, given the history of the region?

You're engaging in speculative whatiffery here but let's run with it. Why won't the US government respect the wishes of the people of Okinawa who clearly don't want the US Navy there? Or let's ask the people of the Phillippines, who've had a long and bloody history of US military action on their soil as to what they think of the US.

southsiderosie wrote: »

I do not agree with a lot of American foreign policy. But to pretend like there are not massive spillover benefits to a lot of countries from having an American military presence is ridiculous.

No one here is doubting for a second the economic and political benefits to any tin pot dictatorship from currying favour from US regimes by having US military on their doorsteps and being recipients of US aid.

southsiderosie wrote: »

It is also silly to think that the US would sink blood and treasure into regions where it did not have strategic aims, whether shipping lanes, access to oil, or prevention of ruinous regional conflicts - no country would.

Finally we're getting somewhere. You subtly acknowledge that the US is all about it's own strategic interest and maintenance of it's role as the pre-eminent economic and military power.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Finally, for many countries, having a US military presence is the lesser of two evils given who their neighbors are. Just shrieking "bad, bad, the USA is bad" is far too simplistic.

Who'se shrieking that nonsense? is this what you think when you read posts which contradict your sugar covered image of the US' aggressive foreign policy measures down through the years?

skylight1987 · 02-05-2011 08:03PM

JustinDee wrote: »

Yeah, should have sat back, closed eyes and hoped it would all go away.

I hope your not one of the innocent caught up in the inevitable al qaeda bombings cause you will wish they had left it alone then

Laminations · 02-05-2011 08:14PM

skylight1987 wrote: »

I hope your not one of the innocent caught up in the inevitable al qaeda bombings cause you will wish they had left it alone then

I hope he's not either, I hope you're not, I hope I'm not, and that nobody else is. But if we are the victims of terror attacks I'll blame AQ or whoever carries out the killings, I don't agree with you that if more killings happen we should blame America for getting Bin Laden.

How do you think they should have dealt with the terrorist Bin Laden?

Jonny7 · 02-05-2011 08:27PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Imo the US would rather have had him alive. In the eyes of people sympathetic to AQ he will be viewed as having died with his boots on fighting the infidels.

They wanted to take him alive, but he probably didn't really agree with that part of the plan. He wasn't gonna go out like Saddam anyway.

Knight990 · 02-05-2011 08:29PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

They wanted to take him alive, but he probably didn't really agree with that part of the plan. He wasn't gonna go out like Saddam anyway.

No, according to a White House official, the plan was indeed to kill him. However, they said that if he had waved a white flag of surrender, they would have captured him.

Jonny7 · 02-05-2011 08:33PM

Knight990 wrote: »

No, according to a White House official, the plan was indeed to kill him. However, they said that if he had waved a white flag of surrender, they would have captured him.

oops I stand corrected....... interesting

southsiderosie · 02-05-2011 08:40PM

skylight1987 wrote: »

Finally we're getting somewhere. You subtly acknowledge that the US is all about it's own strategic interest and maintenance of it's role as the pre-eminent economic and military power.

EVERY government is about its own strategic interests. Where is this not the case? Smart states make and break international alliances based on their strategic interests, whether that is access to resources, shipping lanes, technology, or cash transfers. The US is not unique in this regard, even if the scale of their international activity is. That's my point, and I wish you would stop misconstruing it.

I'll leave it at that.

JustinDee · 02-05-2011 08:40PM

skylight1987 wrote: »

I hope your not one of the innocent caught up in the inevitable al qaeda bombings cause you will wish they had left it alone then

Lost a good friend in the Kuta bombings (was on his honeymoon) and knew quite a few of the victims from a rugby club who also died in that massacre.
Leave it alone? Don't be stupid.

Mr.Micro · 02-05-2011 09:24PM

Knight990 wrote: »

No, according to a White House official, the plan was indeed to kill him. However, they said that if he had waved a white flag of surrender, they would have captured him.

Osama may have been dead for some years waiting to be taken out of the freezer when the time was opportune......as implausible as that may sound it is not an impossible scenario, and dead men tell no tales.

I would question the wisdom of boasting to the world of the killing and as yet to show photos of the deceased, to serve what purpose? its like the barbaric practice of putting your enemies heads on poles in the middle ages. Such boasting will only serve to inflame anti American feelings?

Knight990 · 02-05-2011 09:32PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Osama may have been dead for some years waiting to be taken out of the freezer when the time was opportune......as implausible as that may sound it is not an impossible scenario, and dead men tell no tales.

I would question the wisdom of boasting to the world of the killing and as yet to show photos of the deceased, to serve what purpose? its like the barbaric practice of putting your enemies heads on poles in the middle ages. Such boasting will only serve to inflame anti American feelings?

You're spot on about this, man. There are still a lot of unanswered questions floating about, with various people expressing the belief that he did indeed die last year, the year before and even up to ten years ago. I don't think anything is impossible at all in this situation.

As last I heard it, there are in fact photos of the real corpse (as opposed to the photoshopped ones that were discovered to be fake), but the White House is unsure of whether to make them public due to fear of even worse reprisals by Al-Qaeda, and the fact that they are apparently very gruesome.

LostinKildare · 02-05-2011 09:56PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I would question the wisdom of boasting to the world of the killing and as yet to show photos of the deceased, to serve what purpose? its like the barbaric practice of putting your enemies heads on poles in the middle ages. Such boasting will only serve to inflame anti American feelings?

Where's the boasting? The announcement by Obama was very dignified and restrained IMO. No "Mission Accomplished," no "Heckuva Job"! No heads on pikes -- which seems to be what you're calling for, as evidence.

And if bin Laden's been dead for years in the deep freeze, the Obama administration surely would've waited for a more opportune time to bring him out -- i.e., closer to the election. As it is, any bump in the polls this brings will have faded by then.

Shea O'Meara · 02-05-2011 09:57PM

The clever thing to have done would have been to put him on trial, a real non-military trial. Carrying out a clandestine assasination to protect your democratic freedoms is just hypocritical.
Waving the US flag and chanting, 'We're number one!' is exactly the same as the footage we saw of people in some nations cheering as the twin towers fell.
Movements do not require a figurehead in the generic political party sense. Nothing has changed except possibly a slight rise in the polls for Obama.

Jonny7 · 02-05-2011 09:57PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Osama may have been dead for some years waiting to be taken out of the freezer when the time was opportune......as implausible as that may sound it is not an impossible scenario, and dead men tell no tales.

I would question the wisdom of boasting to the world of the killing and as yet to show photos of the deceased, to serve what purpose? its like the barbaric practice of putting your enemies heads on poles in the middle ages. Such boasting will only serve to inflame anti American feelings?

Putting the heads on poles is a medieval way of... showing the photos.. no?

I'm of the same mind, pics or GTFO

There are no conspiracy theories or doubts about Uday and Qusay

Jonny7 · 02-05-2011 10:04PM

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Search your no doubt exhaustive knowledge of US history and reference the US' war against Spain and activities in central American during, before and after the turn of the 20th Century.

You are not serious? I am curious do you tie in British imperialism in India with the current situation in Afghanistan?

What complexities? spell it out for me. No one is spinning the "America is evil" line, merely pointing out that a country with it's track record and history, it is most likely that it will be in Afghanistan for the long term, even with the Taliban and Bin Laden long gone.

Your view is that the US is there, killing locals, calling them 'terrorists' just to prolong it so that they can stay there longer. I am counting boots on the ground here, just like the Brits, and the French and the Poles.

Well call me a crazy conspiracy theorist but the Americans want to keep their forces in Afghanistan as much as they wanted to keep forces in Vietnam

Next you're going to tell us NATO wants a long drawn out conflict in Libya, because UK and France have a history of colonialism, am I right?

Or is your beef just with the US.. whats it to be

Mr.Micro · 02-05-2011 10:06PM

LostinKildare wrote: »

Where's the boasting? The announcement by Obama was very dignified and restrained IMO. No "Mission Accomplished," no "Heckuva Job"! No heads on pikes -- which seems to be what you're calling for, as evidence.

And if bin Laden's been dead for years in the deep freeze, the Obama administration surely would've waited for a more opportune time to bring him out -- i.e., closer to the election. As it is, any bump in the polls this brings will have faded by then.

There is more than an election at stake here. The US is at war one way or another in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and the killing of Bin Laden would be a big distraction and a boon for the years of war and the public becoming weary. Added to this, the US Defence Department are putting in for a budget of 105 plus billion $ for the next year just to fund the war in Afghanistan. Its all politics.

With regard to boasting tune into US TV networks and watch the sickening boasting as if the US is beyond atrocities itself. 3000 innocent people plus died in 9/11 and 700000 plus died in Iraq for those 3000. Both tragic statistics at the hands of evil men. One terrorist and the other a Republican. Is there a difference?

Jonny7 · 02-05-2011 10:19PM

Knight990 wrote: »

No, according to a White House official, the plan was indeed to kill him. However, they said that if he had waved a white flag of surrender, they would have captured him.

Oh I take the back.. they just said they would have taken him alive if they could

Although not so sure I trust this John Brennan fella, seems to be a bit of a spinmeister.

Hope they release photos soon, or this will backfire.

Knight990 · 02-05-2011 10:24PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Oh I take the back.. they just said they would have taken him alive if they could

Although not so sure I trust this John Brennan fella, seems to be a bit of a spinmeister.

Hope they release photos soon, or this will backfire.

Ah right, I stand correct so

It's a bit hard to tell what's true and what isn't at the minute.

Hayte · 02-05-2011 10:31PM

I'm not gonna presume whether or not he could have been taken in alive and put on trial or anything. I find it disappointing and disturbing however that there is fistpumping and "cheering USA" and a general idea that justice has somehow been done, or that this represents some sort of closure. I had hoped that the response would be more enlightened and more contemplative. Any celebration over a man's death is ultimately rather hollow because it can never equalize what they have taken. There isn't any creation in this, just revelry in destruction and relief that it isn't something valuable of yours that is being destroyed.

Its hard not to look at the million+ dead (overwhelmingly civilian), the sustained bombing to date of Iraq and Afghanistan back to the middle ages, the trillions spent on a messed up US war economy, reduced civil liberties (i.e. FISA surveillance in the Patriot Act) and find anything to wave your fist in the air about.

Or maybe thats just me and I just don't understand people anymore.

LostinKildare · 02-05-2011 10:47PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

There is more than an election at stake here. The US is at war one way or another in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and the killing of Bin Laden would be a big distraction and a boon for the years of war and the public becoming weary. Added to this, the US Defence Department are putting in for a budget of 105 plus billion $ for the next year just to fund the war in Afghanistan. Its all politics.

Well, in politics there's nothing more important than the next election, so I stick by my point that if this were fake they would've used it to greater effect. We've been looking for such an October Surprise in the last two presidential elections. Wrt the ongoing wars and military spending, I'd argue that this makes it more likely that the US will withdraw military troops and cut spending, since the wars' raison d'etre has been removed (wink, wink). Remember? -- we invaded Iraq because of 9/11! If Obama draws out at least some troops, he shores up his chances for reelection. This is my hope, anyway. God knows he's disappointed me before.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

With regard to boasting tune into US TV networks and watch the sickening boasting as if the US is beyond atrocities itself. 3000 innocent people plus died in 9/11 and 700000 plus died in Iraq for those 3000. Both tragic statistics at the hands of evil men. One terrorist and the other a Republican. Is there a difference?

Okay I thought you meant the official govt line was boastful.

I don't watch US television anymore, but yeah, I'd imagine that the more conservative outlets would be particularly bad. Re the US foreign policy/conduct of wars, you're preaching to the choir here.

Laminations · 02-05-2011 10:54PM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Waving the US flag and chanting, 'We're number one!' is exactly the same as the footage we saw of people in some nations cheering as the twin towers fell.

Well not really because one is celebrating the long awaited death of a terrorist while the other is celebrating the unannounced death of 3000 innocent people

mike65 · 02-05-2011 10:58PM

Hayte wrote: »

I
Its hard not to look at the million+ dead (overwhelmingly civilian), the sustained bombing to date of Iraq and Afghanistan back to the middle ages, the trillions spent on a messed up US war economy, reduced civil liberties (i.e. FISA surveillance in the Patriot Act) and find anything to wave your fist in the air about.

I think you'll find the Taliban were the force that reduced Afghanistan to a barbaric feudal state.

southsiderosie · 02-05-2011 11:04PM

Hayte wrote: »

I'm not gonna presume whether or not he could have been taken in alive and put on trial or anything. I find it disappointing and disturbing however that there is fistpumping and "cheering USA" and a general idea that justice has somehow been done, or that this represents some sort of closure. I had hoped that the response would be more enlightened and more contemplative. Any celebration over a man's death is ultimately rather hollow because it can never equalize what they have taken. There isn't any creation in this, just revelry in destruction and relief that it isn't something valuable of yours that is being destroyed.

Its hard not to look at the million+ dead (overwhelmingly civilian), the sustained bombing to date of Iraq and Afghanistan back to the middle ages, the trillions spent on a messed up US war economy, reduced civil liberties (i.e. FISA surveillance in the Patriot Act) and find anything to wave your fist in the air about.

Or maybe thats just me and I just don't understand people anymore.

It's not just you - I feel the exact same way. Well said.

Hayte · 02-05-2011 11:19PM

mike65 wrote: »

I think you'll find the Taliban were the force that reduced Afghanistan to a barbaric feudal state.

I'm not suggesting they weren't. The bomb has historically been a pretty bad tool for state building though.

yammycat · 02-05-2011 11:27PM

mike65 wrote: »

I think you'll find the Taliban were the force that reduced Afghanistan to a barbaric feudal state.

It was already a barbaric fuedal state when they came along, it was a mess after the commies left

Laminations · 03-05-2011 12:10AM

Laminations wrote: »

Well not really because one is celebrating the long awaited death of a terrorist while the other is celebrating the unannounced death of 3000 innocent people

Just to qualify, I'm not saying its in good taste to go out celebrating in the streets and punching the air, I'm just saying that his death and how people react to his death is not equatable to the ~3000 who died on 9/11 and the people who celebrated that attack.

I'll put it this way, I'm not going to be out in the streets celebrating Bin Laden's death but I'm not going to mourn him (or really feel bad in any way). I did mourn those who died on September 11th and I do feel bad for all innocents who have died from the war that resulted.

For those making comparisons of public reaction, did you mourn the deaths on 9/11? Do you now mourn Bin Laden? Then the events aren't comparable so the reactions shouldn't be judged with the same metric.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 03-05-2011 01:10AM

Wikileaks: Al-Qaeda plotted chemical and nuclear attack on the West

Guantanamo interrogators have uncovered a determined attempt by al-Qaeda to attack Western countries using chemical or nuclear weapons, according to the top-secret files

One of the terrorist group’s most senior figures warned that al-Qaeda had obtained and hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe that would be detonated if Osama bin Laden was killed or captured.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda mastermind currently facing trial in America over the 9/11 atrocities, was involved in a range of plans including attacks on US nuclear plants and a “nuclear hellstorm” plot in America.

A number of the conspiracies admitted by detainees during interrogation in Cuba seem improbable, but other plans were detailed and thoroughly analysed.

Some detainees displayed an apparently comprehensive knowledge of Western countries’ defences against nuclear attack.

According to the US WikiLeaks files, a Libyan detainee, Abu Al-Libi, “has knowledge of al-Qaeda possibly possessing a nuclear bomb”. Al-Libi, the operational chief of al-Qaeda and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before his detention, allegedly knew the location of a nuclear bomb in Europe that would be detonated if bin Laden were killed or captured.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472810/Wikileaks-Al-Qaeda-plotted-chemical-and-nuclear-attack-on-the-West.html

Ah bollocks. Why am I in mainland europe? And ffs a helicoper is just after flying over my roof....

Laminations · 03-05-2011 01:12AM

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

That's one way of looking at it, mine is an overview.
You could also say, one is the murder of a leader of the people the other just desserts for a western tyranical regime.
Celebrating a killing or killings by dancing in the streets doesn't sit right but I'm sure you'll find both sides felt justified.

Agree on the celebrating part but the events are not comparable. Did you mourn the deaths on 9/11? Did YOU think those innocent people got 'just desserts'? Did you feel bad for them?

Now do you feel bad for Bin Laden? Do you mourn him? Do YOU think he got his 'just desserts'?

Shea O'Meara · 03-05-2011 01:28AM

Laminations wrote: »

Well not really because one is celebrating the long awaited death of a terrorist while the other is celebrating the unannounced death of 3000 innocent people

That's one way of looking at it, mine is an overview.
You could also say, one is the murder of a leader of the people the other just desserts for a western tyrannical regime.
Celebrating a killing or killings by dancing in the streets doesn't sit right but I'm sure you'll find both sides felt justified.

Laminations wrote: »

Just to qualify, I'm not saying its in good taste to go out celebrating in the streets and punching the air, I'm just saying that his death and how people react to his death is not equatable to the ~3000 who died on 9/11 and the people who celebrated that attack.

I was comparing the 'we're number one' flag wavers to those who celebrated the twin towers. Both are of the exact same mentality, in my view.
You can compare one to 3000 and if so go on to what the US state has done and compare that to Bin Laden, but that's not my point either.

Laminations wrote: »

I'll put it this way, I'm not going to be out in the streets celebrating Bin Laden's death but I'm not going to mourn him (or really feel bad in any way). I did mourn those who died on September 11th and I do feel bad for all innocents who have died from the war that resulted.

For those making comparisons of public reaction, did you mourn the deaths on 9/11? Do you now mourn Bin Laden? Then the events aren't comparable so the reactions shouldn't be judged with the same metric.

Again, in your view, what if I have the view he was a walking saint?
My view is that celebrating death/s, which ever side of the fence you find yourself, is at best uncomfortable to me. You can't have one rule for some, another rule for others as it suits. That's not how justice or fair play works. I'm sure his supporters saw people outside the Whitehouse and thought, 'Fair enough'.
I know I am not alone in feeling, as I did seeing the celebrations on 9/11, a little disgusted.

Liam Byrne · 03-05-2011 01:32AM

Has anyone independent confirmed his death?

I was watching the breaking news about this and I find the whole "buried at sea" story a little too convenient.

That said it's probably just because of all the other lies in relation to this that I don't believe a word America or the UK say in relation to it.

Implications of Bin Laden's death?

Comments